moparisthebest
/
xeps
mirror of https://github.com/moparisthebest/xeps
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

XEP-0410: use correct term - s/participant/occupant/

This commit is contained in:
Georg Lukas 2019-01-29 17:14:23 +01:00
parent 373f19a475
commit d4dda9ec05
1 changed files with 15 additions and 15 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
xep-0410.xml
View File

@ -53,9 +53,9 @@
not designed to handle s2s interruptions or message loss well. Rather
often, the restart of a server or a component causes a client to believe
that it is still joined to a given chatroom, while the chatroom service
does not know of this participant.</p>
does not know of this occupant.</p>
<p>Existing approaches for re-synchronization are either inefficient
(presence updates and "silent" messages are reflected to all participants,
(presence updates and "silent" messages are reflected to all occupants,
totalling to O(N²) stanzas per time unit), or mask message /
presence losses (the implicit join performed via the deprecated GC1.0
protocol).</p>
@ -76,8 +76,8 @@
and a typically local server-to-component link. If one of the involved
servers or the MUC component is restarted, or one of the links is
disturbed for some time, this can lead to the removal of some or all
participants from the affected MUCs, without the clients being informed.</p>
<p>To a participant, this looks like the MUC is silent (there is no chat
occupants from the affected MUCs, without the clients being informed.</p>
<p>To an occupant, this looks like the MUC is silent (there is no chat
activity and no presence changes), making it hard to realize that the
connection was interrupted.</p>
<p>To prevent the bad usability effect (message loss, lack of reaction from
@ -88,13 +88,13 @@
it is still joined to a MUC:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Silent message</strong> (e.g. &xep0085;): this message will be reflected to
all MUC participants, causing unwanted traffic and potentially waking
all MUC occupants, causing unwanted traffic and potentially waking
up mobile devices without reason. If implemented by all clients, this
will result in O(N²) messages to the MUC.</li>
<li><strong>Presence update</strong>: if the MUC service implements the legacy GC1.0 protocol,
this will be treated as a join attempt, and the MUC will return the
full list of participants and full room history. The user's client
will however miss partial history (other participants leaving,
full list of occupants and full room history. The user's client
will however miss partial history (other occupants leaving,
potentially also messages), and this has the same drawbacks as the
first solution.</li>
<li><strong>Private message to self</strong>: the client can send a MUC
@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
private messages, and there is no way to differentiate that from the
error responses.</li>
<li><strong>Private IQ to self</strong>: the client can send an IQ to
its own participant JID. MUCs typically do not forbid those, and
its own occupant JID. MUCs typically do not forbid those, and
reflect the IQ request to the client (or another client of the same
user). Once that client responds to the reflected IQ, the response is
delivered to the initiating client as a sign of still being joined.
@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
<p>If Juliet's client is not joined, the MUC service will respond with a
&lt;not-acceptable&gt; error. Thus, her client can automatically attempt
a rejoin.</p>
<example caption="Server Response to a Non-Participant"><![CDATA[
<example caption="Server Response to a Non-Occupant"><![CDATA[
<iq from='characters@chat.shakespeare.lit/JuliC' id='s2c1' type='error'
to='juliet@capulet.lit/client' >
<error type="cancel">
@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
&lt;feature-not-implemented&gt;)</strong>: the client is joined, but
the pinged client does not implement &xep0199;.</li>
<li><strong>Error (&lt;item-not-found&gt;)</strong>: the client is
joined, but the participant just changed their name (e.g. initiated by
joined, but the occupant just changed their name (e.g. initiated by
a different client).</li>
<li><strong>Any other error</strong><note>Different service
implementations will send different responses to a client that's not
@ -178,8 +178,8 @@
connectivity issues, which is often the case with mobile devices, the
ping request might never be responded to.</p>
<p>Therefore, a MUC service supporting this protocol may directly respond
to a participant's Ping request to the participant's own nickname, as
opposed to routing it to any of the participant's clients. A service
to a occupant's Ping request to the occupant's own nickname, as
opposed to routing it to any of the occupant's clients. A service
implementing this optimization needs to advertise the
<tt>self-ping-optimization</tt> feature in the &xep0030; response on
the individual MUC room JIDs, and it MUST respond to a self-ping request
@ -201,7 +201,7 @@
</section1>
<section1 topic='Implementation Notes' anchor='impl'>
<p>In Multi-Session-Nick scenarios, where multiple clients of the same user
are joined as the same participant, it is possible that another client
are joined as the same occupant, it is possible that another client
initiates a nickname change while a ping request is pending. In that case,
the ping might be responded to with &lt;item-not-found&gt;.</p>
<p>A client should not perform a self-ping after initiating a nickname
@ -213,8 +213,8 @@
</p>
</section1>
<section1 topic='Security Considerations' anchor='security'>
<p>A MUC service implementation should not allow a non-participant to obtain
information about participants. This is however true irregardless of
<p>A MUC service implementation should not allow a non-occupant to obtain
information about occupants. This is however true irregardless of
implementing this specification.</p>
</section1>
<section1 topic='IANA Considerations' anchor='iana'>